Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Default Judgment & Arbitration Stay Application

In Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd v Carona Holdings Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the plaintiff's application for default judgment against the defendants (Carona Holdings Pte Ltd, Carona Fast Food Pte Ltd, Foodplex Trading Pte Ltd, Yap Teck Song, and Lee Boon Hiok) for failing to file a defence, while the defendants had a pending application to stay the proceedings in favor of arbitration. The plaintiff's claim included breaches of a franchise agreement and misrepresentations. The court granted the default judgment, holding that the defendants should have applied for an extension of time to file their defence. The court made no order in relation to the stay application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Default judgment granted to the plaintiff; no order made in relation to the stay application.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a default judgment application while a stay for arbitration was pending, clarifying the timelines under the Rules of Court.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Carona Holdings Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment in default of defenceLost
Carona Fast Food Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment in default of defenceLost
Foodplex Trading Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment in default of defenceLost
Yap Teck SongDefendantIndividualJudgment in default of defenceLost
Lee Boon HiokDefendantIndividualJudgment in default of defenceLost
Go Go Delicacy Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment in default of defence grantedWon
Alfred Dodwell of Alfred Dodwell

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mohamed Faizal ARAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian Tan Gim HaiDrew & Napier LLC
Tan IjinDrew & Napier LLC
Alfred DodwellAlfred Dodwell

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Yap and Mr. Lee represented that Carona Holdings owned and operated "GoGo Franks" and were looking to franchise it.
  2. Go Go Delicacy was incorporated to be a vehicle for the proposed "GoGo Franks" franchise.
  3. Go Go Delicacy took up tenancy at Bukit Panjang Plaza to set up a "GoGo Franks" outlet.
  4. Go Go Delicacy entered into an exclusive Franchise Agreement with Carona Holdings.
  5. The Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause.
  6. Go Go Delicacy claimed Carona Holdings breached the Franchise Agreement.
  7. Defendants applied for a stay of proceedings based on the arbitration clause instead of filing a defence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd v Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 173/2007, SUM 1707/2007, 1806/2007, [2007] SGHC 97

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Yap Teck Siong and Mr Lee Boon Hiok represented to three brothers that Carona Holdings Pte Ltd was the owner and operator of “GoGo Franks”.
Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd incorporated.
Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd entered into an exclusive Franchise Agreement with Carona Holdings Pte Ltd.
Plaintiff filed action against the five defendants.
Defendants applied for proceedings to be stayed.
Plaintiff took out an application for judgment in default of defence.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Default Judgment
    • Outcome: The court granted default judgment, holding that the defendants should have applied for an extension of time to file their defence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to file defence
      • Failure to apply for extension of time
  2. Stay of Proceedings for Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the merits of the stay application due to the granting of default judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of arbitration clause to non-signatories
      • Whether a pending stay application ceases the applicability of timelines under the Rules of Court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR 168SingaporeCited for the principle that a pending stay application does not stop time running for the service of the defence.
Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd and OthersHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 382SingaporeCited for the principle that a party seeking to stay proceedings could not be compelled to file its defence while a stay application was pending final disposal.
Chong Long Hak Kee Construction Trading Co v IEC Global Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2003] 4 SLR 499SingaporeCited for the principle that filing pleadings without caveat is a step demonstrating intention to defend the substance of the claim in judicial proceedings.
Yeoh Poh San and Another v Won Siok WanHigh CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 91SingaporeCited for the principle that a defendant should not be required to meet the plaintiff’s claim on the merits while seeking to stay the proceedings.
Patel v PatelQueen's BenchYes[2000] QB 551United KingdomCited to support the point that the question of whether there should be a stay of these proceedings becomes wholly moot since there would be, strictly speaking, no judicial proceedings to stay until an application to set aside the default judgment was made.
Ford’s Hotel Co v BartlettHouse of LordsYes[1896] AC 1United KingdomCited as an example from the UK where a request for an extension of time has, in some instances, been deemed to be evidence of an intention to deliver a statement of defence, thus constituting a deemed waiver of the right to arbitration.
London Sack & Bag Co Ltd v Dixon & Lugton LtdUnknownYes[1943] 2 All ER 763United KingdomCited as a case from the UK that is contrasted with Ford's Hotel Co v Bartlett regarding whether a request for an extension of time constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitration.
Sanwell Corp v Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd & AnorFederal CourtYes[2002] 2 MLJ 625MalaysiaCited as an example from Malaysia where the same position as Ford's Hotel Co v Bartlett has found favor.
International SOS Pte Ltd v Overton Mark Harold GeorgeHigh CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 226SingaporeCited as an example of court-related steps that would not be tantamount to being steps in the proceedings and that would, consequently, not prejudice an applicant’s right to apply for a stay of proceedings.
Star Trans Far East Pte Ltd v Norske-Tech LtdHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 631SingaporeCited as an example of court-related steps that would not be tantamount to being steps in the proceedings and that would, consequently, not prejudice an applicant’s right to apply for a stay of proceedings.
Eagle Star Insurance v Yuval InsuranceUnknownYes[1978] 1 Lloyds’ Rep 357UnknownCited for the principle that the court has to query whether the step taken amounts to a waiver of the right to arbitration insofar as such step amounted to a demonstration of a willingness to defend the substance of the claim in court.
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraq Airways CoUnknownYes[1994] 1 Lloyds’ Rep 276UnknownCited for the principle that the court has to query whether the step taken amounts to a waiver of the right to arbitration insofar as such step amounted to a demonstration of a willingness to defend the substance of the claim in court.
WestLB AG v Philippine National Bank & OthersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 967SingaporeCited as consistent with domestic jurisprudence that highlights that any step taken need not be done at the expense of any right to stay the proceedings as long as such step is taken with the caveat that the appropriate reservations were made.
Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd and OthersHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the reservations of the High Court regarding the view that a mere reservation would be sufficient to caveat any application that delved into the merits of the case as a step in the proceedings.
Usahabina v Anuar bin YahyaHigh CourtYes[1998] 7 MLJ 691MalaysiaCited as a case where a party seeks an extension of time for reasons extrinsic to the possibility of advancing the claim in an arbitral forum, for example, I would have no doubt that such an application for extension of time would constitute a step in the proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Franchise Agreement
  • Arbitration Clause
  • Stay Application
  • Default Judgment
  • Rules of Court
  • GoGo Franks

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • stay of proceedings
  • default judgment
  • franchise agreement
  • rules of court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice80
Arbitration75
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law60
Franchise Agreement50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law